Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

semi-protected edit request

the article cites that temperatures dropped to -40 Celsius however, according to Wiki Weatger and other sources, the average nighttime winter temperatures are above -10 Celsius 2A00:23C4:3522:6B01:713:C0B9:3A0E:E284 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Stalingrad start date and scope

The date as listed on here for the battle is 23 August 1942, however, the casualties for Soviet forces are calculated from 17 July 1942 to the end of the battle by Krivosheev, and 17 July is listed as the start of the battle by Russian historians. The Hebrew Wikipedia article explains that "It can be started on July 17, 1942, when the Sixth Army first encountered the forces of the Stalingrad front west of the bend of the Don River, on August 23, when the first force of the German army managed to reach the Volga north of Stalingrad, or on September 13, when the campaign inside the city of Stalingrad began".

Another issue is the scope of the battle, which while all include German, Italian, Romanian and Croatian losses, the inclusion of Hungarian losses is complicated, as the article from the Hebrew Wikipedia makes note that "The Second Hungarian Army also suffered heavy losses (about 200,000 casualties) during the Soviet attack in the Upper Don region, which followed the Battle of Stalingrad. However, there is no justification to include its losses within the Axis forces' losses in the campaign on Stalingrad, because the attack on the army had no direct connection to the Battle of Stalingrad, and it was conducted in the area of ​​the city of Voronezh, hundreds of kilometers from the Stalingrad area".

Any input would be appreciated. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A parenthesis should be added under both Axis and Allies casualties “(includes losses for all of Case Blue and Caucasus Campaign)”. 47.220.25.18 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The furthest extent of losses don't include the Caucasus campaign or all of the Southern Front fighting, however the scope is large regardless. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Article size 17,000 words.

Over the last several months, the article has grown from 12,000 words (which was already too big) to over 17,000. This is going in the wrong direction. (Hohum ^@) 22:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum I have made several recent edits to trim the article down and make it more concise, and made a new subsection detailing the tactics and battlefield conditions, as the "strategy and tactics" section was enormously long under one subsection. The problem most likely lies with the importance, popularity and all the information that can be gleaned from the battle itself. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's great that you have trimmed some parts. However the complexity of the subject isn't an excuse for such an overlength article. This is explained clearly in WP:Article size, with "reader issues/readability" being the primary one here, although it also affects maintenance significantly. Other articles on extremely complex and important subjects do manage to be far smaller, using various means. While the guideline does say that there can be occasional exceptions, I think other alternatives should be carefully considered first. (Hohum ^@) 01:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added a "section sizes" template at the top of this talk page to assist any potential efforts. (Hohum ^@) 01:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Understandable of course and I'll continue to make it more concise, since I am guilty myself of adding a great deal to the article to give more information and signify its importance from all sources, including a lot more Russian ones than just English sources. As noted by historian Geoffrey Roberts for example, there's just so much information about the battle and countless sources of it, so pulling what you can from these sources is a bit hard without taking away from what should be stated and explained. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, should the self-published source by Cameran Guan from https://thebattleofstalingrad1942-1943.weebly.com/historical-background-and-prelude.html still be used? Reaper1945 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

With so many good sources available for the subject, I think you can be fairly ruthless with any questionable ones. (Hohum ^@) 11:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Tactics and battle conditions" & "Significance" sections could use trimming. I will scrutinize them in greater detail at a later date if no one else does. In general however, I think the significant historical notoriety of this battle and mountains of literature published on it warrants a large article. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is more like a book than an encyclopedia article. It needs some ruthless trimming, IMO. The current bytecount stands at 216,605. Can we at least get it under 200,000? Nosferattus (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I just came to this page for some light reading and it's ridiculously over-written. I appreciate that military enthusiasts want to share their knowledge, but several whole sections are off-topic and full of guff - the 'Aftermath' section for one. I for one would appreciate an editor taking a long blade to this article. Thanks!Newzild (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

65.255.131.188 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) make more info like the general during this battle how long it was ya

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

The end of the second paragraph of this article says the temperature was "tens of degrees below sub-zero" when it should say "tens of degrees below zero". It also would be helpful to note the temperature scale of Celsius here.

In terms of temperature, sub-zero is any value below zero so you could say "temperatures are sub-zero" but the statement "temperatures are below sub-zero" means nothing. 207.153.41.71 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I changed it to "below freezing" because I think that's clearer than denoting the temperature scale. Let me know if you disagree. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

the article cites Sokolov data about 2 million KIA and MIA casualties which seems absolutely unrealistic. Soviet forces in Battle of Stalingrad were ~1,1 million soldiers (every soldier died twice?) and Soviet army in total were ~5,5 million people

i suggest to remove this casualties data 95.220.21.185 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that both German and soviet losses are not just Stalingrad, they are for all fighting on the Southern Front from July, which is way more than “Stalingrad”. 47.220.25.18 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The soviet forces 1,1 mils also are not for the city itself, it is for Southern Front. Total Soviet forces were 5,5 mils for all fronts. Loosing 2 mils KIA would mean 4-8 mils wounded resulting in destruction of the whole Soviet army which is absurd

At least read Sokolov page in Russian wiki with translator: he is a freak of Russian history science community, his "researches" are not based on any facts. It is ridiculous that they are used as a serious data here